"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 5:53:18 PM, Jim wrote:
>
>
> >> a) pick "javascript" instead (netscape copyright name, poorly
> JL> documented)
>
> JL> It's a trademark of Sun actually, I think there'd be a good
argument for
> JL> it being generic now in any case.
>
> In fact, the ECMA committe asked to use the term 'javascript' and was
> refused on trademark grounds.
I'd be interested to see a citation on this...
> I think that bringing HTML recommendations into a discussion of
> interoperability, tight specification, or good practice in MIME
> registration is not going to do your argument a whole lot of good.
Erm, I'm kind of confused here, is there something seriously wrong with
the xhtml recommendations? If they're such a failure why are you
referencing them with the xhtml+mathml+svg work etc?
> JL> I certainly think leaving developers and implementors to develop a
> JL> standard
>
> Developers and implementors already developed a standard.
> Its called ecmascript.
and it's mime-type?
> JL> and to encourage the debate and registration of a mime-type for
> JL> ECMAScript would've been appropriate.
>
> That part I can agree with, although a better time for such a
> statement would have been during SVG 1.0 candidate recommendation.
SVG 1.1 is at Candidate Recommendation, and it still contains
text/ecmascript, so now is a suitable time to raise it - I unfortunately
was not reading at the SVG 1.0 CR phase.
I propose contentScriptType is made a required attribute with no default.
> You would be surprised how many people read scripts to get an idea of
what they do.
I wouldn't at all, I do it daily, it's clearly not a text/* type though.
Which can be clearly demonstrated by having some ecmascript which a human
cannot understand but is valid ecmascript.
> JL> (I'd still like text/ecmascript registered and supported in
Mozilla...)
>
> While agreeing with your parenthetical statement, i do feel it is
> somehow contradicted by the rest of your email.
Absolutely! I'd like Mozilla to support it and the registration on
pragmatic grounds, given that is what we've got and it would cause
minimal harm other than on aesthetic grounds. That doesn't mean I
believe it should've been in the SVG 1.0 specification or should be in
the SVG 1.1 specification.
Jim.